Burden of Proof in Bioethics

Koplin, Julian; Selgelid, Michael J.

doi:10.1111/bioe.12194

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We are not stating that non-periodized approaches are superior to periodized approaches, even though there would be precedents for that in literature (Freitas et al, 2019). We are, however, stating that the scientific principle of the burden of proof should be applied (Hamilton and Best, 2011; Koplin and Selgelid, 2015). Therefore, research on periodization should not limit the comparisons of periodized programs to constant programs, and should not be excused of comparing expected timings of adaptations with actual outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses Comparing Periodized and Non-periodized Exercise Programs: Why We Should Go Back to Original Research

Afonso

Rocha

Nikolaidis³

et al. 2019

Front. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Periodization schedules training periods according to predicted timings of cumulative adaptations and has been at the foundation of exercise prescription. Recently, a selected body of work has highlighted that original research may be providing support for variation, but not for periodized variation. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the timings of expected adaptations have not been tested. However, it is not clear if these problems are present in meta-analyses on the subject, since they might have selected a distinct body or work. Therefore, our goal was to systematically review meta-analyses on exercise periodization, to verify whether the included periodized programs have been contrasted to two types of non-periodized programs (i.e., constant or varied) and also if the predictions concerning cumulative adaptations were tested. Data sources : Cochrane, EBSCO (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SportDISCUS), ISI Web of Knowledge, PEDro, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus. Study eligibility criteria : Meta-analyses comparing periodized exercise programs with non-periodized programs. Participants and interventions : Humans following any form of training periodization. Study appraisal and synthesis methods : A checklist was used to verify whether studies included in the meta-analyses compared periodized to constant or varied, non-periodized programs, as well as whether predictions concerning the timing of adaptations were tested. None of the 21 studies included in the two meta-analyses compared periodized programs with varied, non-periodized programs. The accuracy of the predictions concerning the proposed timings of adaptations was not scrutinized by any of the 21 studies. The studies in question have focused only on strength training, meaning they are limited in scope. The limitations found in these meta-analyses suggest that consultation of original research on the subject is advisable. Systematic review registration number (PROSPERO) : CRD42018111338.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses Comparing Periodized and Non-periodized Exercise Programs: Why We Should Go Back to Original Research

Afonso

Rocha

Nikolaidis³

et al. 2019

Front. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This work reiterates the theoretical interest in Tactical Periodization and the fact that it might be a valid alternative to current periodized models. Notwithstanding, science should not forget the implications of the burden of proof [12,13], meaning that any claim should be properly tested. So far, however, there is no actual experimental research conducted on the subject and thus current statements on the idea constitute opinions and should not claim to be anything more than that.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of research on Tactical Periodization: absence of empirical data, burden of proof, and benefit of doubt

Afonso¹,

Bessa²,

Nikolaidis³

et al. 2020

Hum Mov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. Tactical Periodization was developed as an alternative paradigm to periodization. The principles established by its proponents seem theoretically reasonable and well adjusted to competitive sports, especially team sports with year-long competitions, and are quickly becoming popular in sports such as soccer, rugby, and tennis. There are valid arguments in favour of Tactical Periodization, but in science the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the proponents. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to systematically review articles focusing on Tactical Periodization published in peer-reviewed journals. Methods. The research involved original experimental articles assessing Tactical Periodization in any sport, published in English or Portuguese. Results. Although Tactical Periodization is an interesting theoretical concept and is currently popular, no empirical research on the subject was found. For that reason, it is premature to scientifically support this periodization model. Conclusions. The benefit of doubt can be temporarily conceded but Tactical Periodization was created more than 20 years ago. Therefore, it must be properly tested if it aims to be an alternative to current periodized models.

show abstract

“…In epistemology, an asymmetrical allocation is relevant for regulating the debate between a sceptic and a dogmatist (Brown 1970;Kelly 2005), and for resolving a problem of infinite (dialectical) regress (see Rescher 1977;Rescorla 2009b). Also, it is present in the ethical debates about discrimination and global justice (Räikkä 1997;, organ markets, human enhancement, climate change, and the precautionary principle (Koplin and Selgelid 2015). Finally, in metaphilosophy, Williamson (2011) argues that the burden of proof should rest with those who deny that philosophical expertise contributes to the successful performance of thought experiments.…”

Section: Common Principles Of Asymmetrical Allocationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Presumptions, Burdens of Proof, and Explanations

Bodlović

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the standard view, all presumptions share the same deontic function: they asymmetrically allocate the burden of proof. But what, exactly, does this function amount to? Once presumptions are rejected, do they place the burden of arguing, the burden of explanation, or the most general burden of reasoning on their opponents? In this paper, I take into account the differences between cognitive and practical presumptions and argue that the standard accounts of deontic function are at least ambiguous (because two types of presumptions entail distinct conceptions of the “burden of proof”), and likely implausible. As a result, they require qualifications.

show abstract

Burden of Proof in Bioethics

Cited by 14 publications

References 5 publications

A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses Comparing Periodized and Non-periodized Exercise Programs: Why We Should Go Back to Original Research

A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses Comparing Periodized and Non-periodized Exercise Programs: Why We Should Go Back to Original Research

A systematic review of research on Tactical Periodization: absence of empirical data, burden of proof, and benefit of doubt

On Presumptions, Burdens of Proof, and Explanations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About